Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197
DESIGN OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
The professional education programs of Eastern Michigan University are structured around the following theme at the initial level: EMU teacher educators produce knowledgeable professionals who are caring, reflective, decision-makers in a culturally diverse and technological society. The following theme guides the professional education programs at the advanced level: Eastern Michigan University advanced professional education programs develop leaders who demonstrate reflective thought and scholarship within the context of a culturally diverse society. In addition, the ___ program _________.
Conceptual Framework(s)
Initial. The conceptual framework description for the initial preparation programs is found in Exhibit I.A.1.1. This material should be interpreted much more as "where we want to go" than as "where we are." Although a number of programmatic changes have been made to move toward full implementation of this conceptual framework and several others have been implemented on a pilot basis, many others are in process, with major curricular changes scheduled for implementation in the Fall of 1998. The conceptual framework material has been developed over the past five years with widespread input from not only the university community but from the larger professional community as well. See Exhibit I.A.3.10.
The conceptual framework material includes the knowledge base for the professional and pedagogical portion of the total initial preparation program as well as illustrative examples of the knowledge base for content studies. Additional information about the knowledge base for content studies may be found in Exhibits I.C.2.1 through I.C.2.31 and Exhibits I.C.2.33 through I.C.2.88.
The conceptual frameworks material in Exhibit I.A.1.1 contains several figures that demonstrate how the various program components will contribute to student outcomes when the Reconfigured initial programs are completely implemented. See also Exhibit I.A.2.1. For the nature and extent of implementation of the conceptual frameworks at the course level, see the syllabi for the initial-level professional education courses in Exhibit I.A.2.3.
Various evaluation procedures are already in place. See Exhibit I.A.3.1 (program evaluation-initial), Exhibit I.A.3.4 (changes as a result of evaluations-initial), Exhibit I.A.3.6 (student evaluations of courses and professors-initial), and Exhibit I.A.3.8 (follow-up studies of program completers-initial) for additional information. In addition, the work of the COE Community Advisory Committee (now COE Program and Policy Advisory Council) (Exhibit I.I.3.1) relates, in part, to this topic as well.
Advanced. The conceptual framework material for the advanced preparation programs is found in Exhibit I.A.1.2. The emphasis over the past five years has been on the development of the knowledge bases for these programs. Detailed information about the knowledge base materials for the advanced programs may be found in Exhibit G-17 and Exhibit G-18. The cross-department, cross-college Advanced Programs Committee has worked diligently on the task of identifying and having approved the knowledge base that is expected of all students at the advanced level, as may be seen in Exhibit I.A.3.12. Implementation of the knowledge base (and other conceptual framework material) in more nearly even ways across programs is a current agenda item for the Advanced Programs Committee.
The conceptual framework material includes the knowledge base for the professional and pedagogical studies portion of the total program as well as the knowledge bases for the various content studies areas. An analysis of the implementation of the professional and pedagogical studies knowledge base in the advanced programs is found in Exhibit G-18. Additional information about the conceptual frameworks of the various advanced programs may be found in Exhibit I.C.2.83 and in Exhibits I.F.1.2 through I.F.1.7. For the nature and extent of the implementation of the conceptual frameworks at the course level, see the syllabi for the professional education courses at the advanced level in Exhibit I.A.2.4.
Various evaluation procedures are already in place. See Exhibit I.A.3.2 (program evaluation-advanced), Exhibit I.A.3.5 (changes as a result of evaluations-advanced), Exhibit I.A.3.7 (student evaluations of courses and professors-advanced), and Exhibit I.A.3.9 (follow-up studies of program completers-advanced) for additional information. In addition, the work of the COE Community Advisory Committee (now COE Program and Policy Advisory Council) (Exhibit I.I.3.1 ) relates, in part, to this topic as well.
Initial and Advanced. Students, full- and part-time faculty, and many of our colleagues in the K- 12 community have been informed of the URLs for the conceptual framework material for the initial and advanced programs. See Exhibit G-27. They have been encouraged to read, print out for reference, and use this conceptual framework material as it relates to their association with the various program components. The conceptual frameworks material is consistent with both the university and unit mission statements. See Exhibits IV.A.1.1 and IV.A.1.2.
Inasmuch as the conceptual frameworks material at both the initial and advanced levels has yet to be fully implemented, there has not been an opportunity for a full-scale review and evaluation. However, the material has been through numerous drafts, with modifications based on the input of various constituencies.
General Studies (Initial)
The general studies (known at EMU as "Basic Studies") component has changed but little since the 1992 Institutional Report was prepared. See Exhibit G-1 (Standard I.C, Criteria 10, 11, and 12 ). For current information, see Exhibit G-9, (the 1997 Professional Education Supplement to the Catalog), Exhibit I.A.2.5, Exhibit I.B.1.1, and Exhibit I.B.1.2. Every student is required to have at least one "course in cross-cultural or international studies" in addition to course work in symbolics and communication, science and technology, social science, arts and humanities, and fitness/wellness.
Content Studies for Initial Teacher Preparation
There have been numerous changes in the content studies for the initial preparation program during the past five years as the unit has responded to changing conditions and has attempted to make programmatic improvements. An "urban teacher program" variation for both early childhood and elementary was dropped because of the loss of particular external funding. The number of approved majors for prospective elementary students has been reduced from 20 to four, but these four include a relatively new major in "language arts." The number of approved minors for prospective elementary teachers has been reduced from 25 to 18. In both these cases, the intent has been to bring greater focus to the content that is needed for the elementary classroom. A "structure of the disciplines" minor, required of all prospective elementary teachers, is scheduled for implementation in the Fall of 1998 such as to bring even greater strength to relevant content for the elementary classroom. "Teaching" minors in French, German, and Spanish--weaker in content than the "regular" minor in those subjects-- have been abandoned in favor of the respective "regular" minors.
At the secondary level, home economics education has been phased out. Four programs that each had two variations have been collapsed into a single program for each. Technology education, formerly considered to be a secondary program, is now classified as a K-12 preparation program. The net effect is a reduction from 32 to 26 possible majors, counting, in both cases, several substantive options within "general science." The number of approved minors for prospective secondary teachers has been reduced from 31 to 26. In all these cases, the intent has been to focus resources on areas of greatest need in the secondary schools. At the K-12 level, the number of possible majors (counting separately instrumental music and vocal music) has increased from five to six.
In response to a determination made at the state level, all special education majors are in the early stages of being changed from (for a given disability) separate programs at the elementary level and at the secondary level to a single major covering all grade levels. Several endorsement areas are being reported for the first time, including pre-primary age impaired and severely multiply impaired.
"Social science" majors and minors have been changed to "social studies" majors and minors with major curricular revision such as to bring more focus on the major subjects taught at the elementary and secondary levels. As mentioned above, a new "language arts" major and minor for prospective elementary teachers has been created. The biology program for prospective secondary teachers has been revised such as to strengthen both mathematics and organic chemistry knowledge. Major changes in the program for teachers of physical education have occurred. Virtually all programs have had appreciable changes made at the course level. See Exhibit I.A.2.6, Exhibit I.C.1.1, Exhibit I.C.1.2, and Exhibits I.C.2.33 through I.C.2.88 for related information.
Professional and Pedagogical Studies for Initial Teacher Preparation
Substantial changes in the professional and pedagogical studies sequence for the initial preparation program are scheduled for implementation in Fall 1998. Each of the (a) elementary, (b) secondary, ( c) K-12, and (d) special education sequences will be divided into phases. A student is expected to complete one phase before moving on to the next. A pre-admission phase focuses on individual development, diversity, and learning. Admission to the teacher education program consists of certain cornerstones, with exhibits that must be provided. Additional phases provide for a developmental sequence of learning, with keystones along the way. Again, exhibits must be prepared associated with each of the keystones. Certain phases will include a required, structured field experience. The program concludes with capstone experiences, including student teaching and related integrative seminars. The additional exhibits that are produced at this phase conclude the student's portfolio.
Portions of the Reconfiguration have been implemented on a pilot basis, with changes in course content and structured field experiences associated with certain sections of certain courses. Courses are being revised such as to infuse multicultural topics and the appropriate use of technology throughout the program. Course work will continue to include human development and learning, education of exceptional children, schools in a multicultural society, assessment and evaluation, media/technology skills, and special methods. For details, see the syllabi for the professional education courses in the initial program, Exhibit I.A.2.3. The syllabi also detail ways in which prospective teachers develop understanding and use of a variety of sound teaching practices.
Details remain to be resolved during 1997-98 with respect to the Reconfiguration of the secondary, K-12, and special education programs, but for a complete discussion of the Reconfigured elementary program, see Exhibit G-13 (Reconfiguration) and Exhibit I.A.3.10. The progress that has been made in the secondary, K-12, and special education programs is reflected in the agenda and minutes of the College of Education Council, especially those meetings in 1996-1997. See Exhibit IV.A.4.1.
Integrative Studies (Initial)
The student teaching experience, along with the associated seminars and portfolio development/submission/review, is designed both as a capstone and as an integrative activity. The seminars that are conducted as part of (or in association with) the student teaching experience assist student teachers not only with immediate problems that they are facing, but they provide an opportunity to reflect on their own attempts at teaching and on the teaching they have observed. The seminars also assist student teachers in bringing to their respective classrooms the full range of content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge and skills that they have studied and practiced elsewhere in the total preparation program. Over the past several years, development/submission/review of a portfolio has moved from an optional activity to a required one. This portfolio is expected to demonstrate ways that students have integrated all their own learning experiences into samples of effective teaching. See Exhibit I.E.1.1 and Exhibit I.E.1.2.
Advanced Professional Studies
Admission into an advanced program requires that a person be previously licensed in some professional role. As a result, advanced programs are constructed and conducted with the assumption that students are knowledgeable about and experienced in K-12 school work. See Exhibit I.F.1.1 Since the last NCATE review, no new programs have been added and school psychology has been discontinued for financial reasons. Admissions to the specialist level program in school counseling have been suspended pending major program revision. The former K-12 curriculum program is now a common learnings in curriculum program with the appropriate curriculum changes. The former Master of Arts in industrial education is now a Master of Science in technology education.
In the case of most advanced programs, admission, retention, and exit requirements have been strengthened and explained in much in greater specificity in catalog materials than was the case five years ago. See Exhibit G-9.
A comparison of the 1991-93 Graduate Catalog and the 1997 Professional Education Supplement to the Catalogs reveals a large number of changes that have been made at the structural level of the advanced programs. Over the past five years, appreciable revisions have occurred in (in addition to those already mentioned) such programs as the master's level programs for physical educators; music educators; educational leaders; school counselors; special education teachers (all areas of exceptionality); and for teachers at the early childhood, elementary, middle level, and secondary levels. In addition, a number of modifications have been made to the doctoral program in educational leadership.
The guidelines and standards of specialty organizations have been used to guide the development and revision of the advanced programs. See Exhibit G-6 (ASHA/speech-language pathology), Exhibit G-7 (NASM/music), Exhibit G-8 (CACREP/school counseling), Exhibit I.F.1.2 (NAEYC/early childhood), Exhibit I.F.1.3 (ELCC/educational leadership), Exhibit I.F.1.4 (NMSA/middle level), Exhibit I.F.1.5 (NASPE-AAHPERD/physical education), Exhibit I.F.1.6 (IRA/reading), Exhibit I.F.1.7 (CEC/special education), and Exhibit I.C.2.83 (all other programs).
In a number of programs, thesis options or requirements have been added within the past five years. Some programs require one or more research-related courses; other programs integrate relevant research-related content into other course work. See Exhibit G-18.
Quality of Instruction (Initial and Advanced)
A variety of instructional strategies are used in the courses for professional educators. In the past five years, the use of technologies in the teaching/learning process has increased considerably, especially in the content studies and in the professional and pedagogical studies (see Exhibits I.C.2.33 through I.C.2.88). See Exhibit I.G.1.1 for a detailed presentation of the various instructional strategies that are used in the professional and pedagogical studies courses. See the syllabi in Exhibit I.A.2.3 and Exhibit I.A.2.4.
The themes and conceptual frameworks for both the initial programs and the advanced programs emphasize reflection and cultural diversity along with other attributes that are expected of professional educators. As a result, these concepts are found extensively in the courses and other experiences that constitute the programs. See Exhibit I.G.2.1 and Exhibit I.G.3.1 for an analysis of where and how these concepts such as reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, professional dispositions, cultural diversity, and exceptionalities are included in the various courses and programs. See Exhibit I.G.4.1 for comment on how the results of the evaluations of instruction have been used.
The quality of instruction continues to be assessed in a variety of ways. See Exhibit I.A.3.1 (program evaluation-initial), Exhibit I.A.3.2 (program evaluation-advanced), Exhibit I.A.3.4 (use of evaluations for change-initial), Exhibit I.A.3.5 (use of evaluations for change-advanced), Exhibit I.A.3.6 (student evaluations of courses and instructors-initial), Exhibit I.A.3.7 (student evaluations of courses and instructors-advanced), Exhibit I.A.3.8 (follow-up studies of completers-initial), Exhibit I.A.3.9 (follow-up studies of completers-advanced), Exhibit I.G.4.1 (overall), and, for promotion and tenure purposes, Exhibit III.D.3.1. State certification test score data (Exhibit II.D.2.2) have been used in some instances to examine why students are doing poorly in certain subareas.
Quality of Field Experiences
Initial. At the present time, a minimum of 100 clock hours of pre-student teaching field experience is required of all students. However, in some cases, as in special education programs, this requirement is presently structured into programs. Further, on a pilot basis, additional courses in the sequences for the elementary, secondary, and K-12 teachers have included required pre-student teaching field experiences. With the implementation of the Reconfiguration of the elementary, secondary, K-12, and special education programs, which begins in the Fall of 1998, credit-bearing structured pre-student teaching field experiences will be available and required of all students in all programs. See Exhibit I.H.1.1 and Exhibit I.H.2.1 for additional information about current practices with respect to field experiences.
Each prospective teacher has at least a full semester of full-time student teaching. K-12 students divide the time between elementary and secondary settings. Students earning multiple credentials simultaneously (e.g., early childhood and elementary, special education and elementary) have more than a semester's experience in student teaching.
The student teaching experience has become increasingly structured in terms of expected activities, evaluation, seminars, portfolio development/submission/review, etc. See Exhibit I.H.3.1 for materials that explain student teaching expectations. Student teaching sites and cooperating teachers are selected on multiple criteria. See Exhibit I.H.3.2 and Exhibit I.H.3.3 for additional information on co-operating teachers and the demographics of sites
Advanced. Some advanced programs include one or more internship/practicum courses as a separate entity (e.g., all leadership programs, school counseling, speech pathology, learning disabilities, the specialist program in special education). In other programs, field experiences occur as part of certain courses. See Exhibit I.H.3.1 for additional information on field experiences at the advanced level.
Professional Community
Initial. Faculty members from throughout the university have been and are involved in the reconfiguration of the elementary, secondary, K-12, and special education programs. See Exhibit I.A.3.10. See also the documentation of the work of the Basic Programs Committee, a multi-department, multi-college entity. (Exhibit I.A.3.11). For additional collaborations within the university, see Exhibit I.I.1.1.
Initial and Advanced. Documents defining roles of the student, the university supervisor, and the cooperating professional for the various field experiences are found in Exhibit I.I.1.2. Agreements between the school district (or other clinical agency) and EMU are found in Exhibit I.I.2.1.
EMU is involved extensively with K-12 schools and related educational agencies. For information on the longstanding, award-winning Collaborative School Improvement Program (C-SIP) see Exhibit I.I.3.3. This exhibit gives information about various other projects/activities of the COE's Office of Collaborative Education, including the two "consociate" schools. EMU is the "university partner" for the Comer Schools and Families Initiative in Detroit. For information on this highly significant and influential partnership, see Exhibit I.I.3.4.
During the past six years, the COE has increased its sponsored project funding from approximately $100,000 per year to $1.3 million in fiscal 1997. Much of this money has gone to support various partnership activities, programs, not only including the Comer Project, but service-learning activities and many others. For additional information, see Exhibit I.I.3.5.
For additional information, please contact Jerry H. Robbins, Dean, at (313)487-1414 or by e-mail at Jerry.Robbins@emich.edu.
 EMU |
 COE |
 NCATE |
 Prev |
 Next |
Office of the Dean
College of Education
(313) 487-1414
FAX (313) 484-6471
If you have any questions, comments or problems with these web pages or this web server, please contact: Web.NCATE@emich.edu.